Dear Friends:
The month of June approaches and with it many graduations. As you contemplate university experiences will you take a moment to ponder a theme that may not have been in the curriculum. If it shall prove helpful to your thinking I shall be grateful.
I HAVE recently read an interesting book entitled "Man and His Universe," by John Langdon-Davies. The following are a few sentences taken from the introduction:
"The history of science is then a poetic search for God carried out by rummaging among man's old family records.... Why has so much of human energy and imagination gone to the making of this search? Partly because of an honest love of adventure, inherent in all energetic human beings....
"But there is another reason besides honest love of adventure: it is that, whether rationalists like it or not, man is a believing animal and the really enlightened man is not the one who believes nothing, but the man who founds his beliefs on the firmest rock of reality. Such a man sees in the scientific picture of the universe which happens to be painted in his age the most perfect foundation for his beliefs; and to what is known, he adds an overbelief, something which cannot be proved, but which, on the other hand, cannot be disproved by the body of natural knowledge on which it is built. This overbelief is a man's religion; any overbelief that can be disproved by what science can show to be true is his superstition."
THE following is the substance of a paragraph: The busy man who has no time to study and learn should have no time to believe.
"And why does the modern man have a religion? Because the material facts of life are not sufficient for his happiness."
These statements, it seems to me, have a peculiar interest for college students. During your university career you live largely in the realm of science. From mathematics to music you are concerned with the findings and creations of man. When all the discoveries and findings on any one subject are organized into a coherent course of study, that course becomes a science. You are daily pursuing these sciences and adding to your fund of information.
What is this acquisition of knowledge doing to your overbelief or religion? Since you do have time and disposition to study, Mr. Langdon-Davies would give you the right to believe. Assuming that your initial beliefs have changed with new facts as science has unfolded them to you, how has the change affected you? Are you happier and more content with life or are you disturbed and skeptical? Are you developing a philosophy of life? What is the status of your faith? Of course these are questions which you must answer for yourself. I can only propound them. I cannot answer them.
Perhaps however, I can outline a few suggestions that may help some of you better to fit into your lives the ever-increasing knowledge of the universe you are daily absorbing.
I do not know that I wholly accept everything which I have quoted from Mr. Langdon-Davies, although I have little quarrel with any of it. I firmly believe, however, that he states a real truth when he says that "man is a believing animal." I am also persuaded that nearly all men whether they recognize or admit it or not have what the author designates as an overbelief or a religion.
WHY should not a man have a religion, a faith, an overbelief—one that may not be susceptible to scientific and finite support? Is such a faith a weakness or a virtue? Let us see. The same author from whom we have just quoted in a lengthy review of the history of the attitude of man toward science and religion tells us that practically every scientific contribution from Aristotle to Darwin is attributable almost entirely to the religious urge of man to find out more about God. The many spheres of Aristotle and the epicycles of Ptolemy were all of them chosen by these early philosophers as explanations of the movement of the universe because the spheres and the circles to them most nearly represented God.
Both Galileo and Newton felt that their revolutionary discoveries had inestimably contributed to a better and higher understanding of God and his management of the universe. And even Charles Darwin, the reputed author of evolution, contrary to much popular understanding, was greatly grieved that his new law of natural selection should have been pronounced anti-Christ. He wrote to his American friend, Asa Gray, "I had no intention to write atheistically."
So we see that the very founders of science were responding to the religious urge. They had their overbelief not proved by their findings of material facts. They had their faith as their constant incentive.
Is any overbelief, any religion, justified in the science of today? Have the modern chemists, physicists, biologists, and psychologists discovered so much of the composition, structure, articulation and function of the universe and man that there is now no mystery, nothing to solve? So long as there are in the world mysteries and known unknowables there will always be religion and faith.
THE projection of a new hypothesis is itself a manifestation of faith in something beyond that which may be proved by the demonstrable facts. Nearly every decade brings to the scientific world a new religion; that is, as Mr. Langdon-Davies would say, a new overbelief based upon new discovery and data.
The universe of Millikan and Einstein is as far removed from that of Sir Isaac Newton as was his from the flat earth of Aristotle and Cosmas. The breaking up of solid, static matter into the electrons of motion and energy, the discovered indestructibility of all substance, all happening within comparatively few years have served to revolutionize in many respects at least the religion of the modern intelligent man. He knows more, he thinks differently and his faith and hope have taken on new form.
Is he constrained, however, by such new thinking and new knowledge to abandon much older and long-established concepts of religious truth? Must he change his ideas of God? Must he, to be true to his discoveries and his conclusions, abandon God entirely? Let us see.
These are very important questions and very bold ones for me to ask. I shall be very sorry that I have propounded them if they shall serve no purpose other than to create doubt in your minds and make you agnostic.Now the ideas of most men in the Christian world about God, heaven, salvation, immortality and other theological things are obtained from the Bible; not always by reading the Bible, unfortunately, but often by what men think is in the Bible and what other people tell them about it. Sects and creeds and their traditional teachings also play a great part in the formulation of men's conceptions.
INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible have ever been the source of contention and the provocation of war and unspeakable cruelty all down through the ages. Why has this been so? Why have people regarded their own interpretations as being so vital? Why have they not been more tolerant of the views of others? I think the answer is not difficult. They have regarded the Bible as the word of God, authoritative, mandatory in its exactions of them and of all men. They have conceived it to be their religious duty to enforce its position not only upon themselves but upon others.
In the reign of ignorance, when science had developed so little knowledge of the universe, bigotry and fanaticism completely dominated, at least so it seems to us now looking back on those times with the enlightenment of our present knowledge and experience. With wider knowledge came more tolerance and sympathy.
Unfortunately, however, the tolerance and sympathy which in modern times have been manifest for people having divergent views have not been shown so generously toward the Bible itself. Many of the scientific world having discovered that the earth is round and not flat as the people of the Old Testament evidently believed it to be have ungenerously, and, it seems to me, ruthlessly, thrown the good book into the discard with unconcealed contempt. They point out with gloating satisfaction that the God of the Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God, fighting the battles of his favored people and reveling in the defeat of their enemies.
And then in exultant triumph they point to the so-called miracles of the Bible: the standing still of the sun, the incarceration of Jonah in the belly of the fish, the turning of water into wine, the multiplication of fishes and bread, and tell you that all these accounts are manifestly untrue because they contravene the known laws of nature. So they cast the Bible aside. And not only that, they stigmatize those who accept it.
Now I would not have you understand that I believe all scientists to take this attitude. I am sure that very many do not. Many do, however, and their writings and pronouncements are so generally distributed that their influence and effect are far reaching. Listen to the words of a modern journalist whose writings go everywhere:
"To confess to a belief in theology today is to confess not only to stupidity but also to a kind of malignancy, a delight in opposing decent ideas and harrowing honest men.
"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind, that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than over-borne by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
"I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence for witches and deserves no more of respect."
With such literature in wide circulation and with even the more cautious of scientific teachers, skeptical on their own account and agnostic in their teachings, it is small wonder that the college student of today without an extensive background of experience often finds his traditional faith much disturbed and his attitude toward God and the Bible very much in doubt.
IF the thinking of any of you has been influenced by the matters which I have mentioned, or if perchance hereafter any of you shall be disturbed by such items, I should like to call your attention to some things which I think may serve to fortify you against unwarranted doubt and agnosticism and perhaps encourage you to a more ardent and intelligent devotion to ideals you have long espoused.
Let us go back to the Bible which, as we have said, is the general source book of our theology. I think that in general its critics have been both ungenerous and unfair. Granted for the sake of this discussion that there are within it many statements that seem incongruous with the findings of modern science, is there nothing else in it to justify our admiration for it and our faith in its divine authenticity? Let us see.
It is the Book of all books that defines the nature and powers of God. Nowhere else in all the literature of the civilized world are his attributes so clearly and beautifully set forth. The Biblical description of his attributes has served to give to mankind substantially the only mental conception and visualization of the Divine Parent that the civilized world has ever enjoyed.
What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret Him in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed.
The Bible gives an account of the creation of the world. It is simply stated. It has been made the object of ridicule by some scholars. And yet where is the man on the earth today who has the knowledge, the demonstrable facts to gainsay the truth of the account? I do not pretend to have knowledge of scientific data sufficient to bring proof for the assertion but I am advised that the order of creation as stated in Genesis conforms substantially with the order established by scientific research and deductions [see A Scientific Perspective on the Days of Creation].
OBJECTION is made to the methods employed in Biblical creation whereas in fact the Bible purports to give no method, no real definition of processes whatever. Rather it makes authoritative statements of the facts of creation. Who that is really interested in these major truths will take serious objection to the description of the organization of man: that he was made of the dust of the earth and that his spirit was breathed into him and that woman was made of his rib? Indeed scientists are now all agreed that there is nothing in his physical body except the dust of the earth and those who are candid readily admit that they do not know what his spirit is or whence it came, nor do they know how woman was made.
I grant freely that I do not understand how a woman can be made of a rib, nor how a man's spirit can be breathed into him but because I have been unable to understand or explain these expressions I have never been disposed to doubt the things of major import set forth in the account; namely, the author of creation, the subjects of creation, the order of creation, and the purpose of creation.
The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute. Yet I challenge anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods of creation. By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves. If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process.
Why do the critics whose evident purpose is to scrap the Bible ignore its profound philosophies, its great code of morals and its salutary principles of government and human conduct? Most of them will concede its literary beauty and its most potent influence on the race but they deny its validity, its authority, and therefore its real value to mankind.
LET me ask: How did the Ten Commandments come to be there and what is their value? Who first thought out this transcendent code of morals that has withstood the test of time and now finds itself incorporated into the organic laws of every civilized nation and society on earth, not in its entirety, it is true, because church and state are separated, but insofar as the code relates to human relations? Where is the source of these rules of conduct?
Humanists will tell us that they were concocted by men, the product of men's experience and their observation looking to the good of society. If that be so, surely they were formulated by super-men with vision extended far into the generations to follow, for no other conventions of society of which profane history gives us record have been adhered to with anything like the tenacity and beneficence which have attended this remarkable code. I think it is far easier for most of us who have any credence at all in Divinity to ascribe their source as divine than to imagine their origin in far-seeing, ultrawise super-men of the dim past.
Space will scarcely permit the mention of other distinct contributions which the holy Bible has made to the welfare of the human race. It came forth at a time when the peoples of the world worshiped many gods. The religions of the people surrounding Palestine were polytheistic. The Bible is the exponent of one God. With all the culture and learning of Greece, the pomp and power of Rome and the dominance of Babylon and Assyria, the little impotent scattered Hebrew nation with the aid of the Bible brought Jehovah to triumph over all the other gods and as the processes of civilization went forward Jehovah, the one God, led the way, dominated all learning, all science, all new discoveries and even today the Israelitish people, a nation without a country, can point with justifiable pride that their one God, the Jehovah who led their tribal army, has conquered the greater nations of the earth and still reigns as King of Kings.
HOW has this been possible? Chiefly through the Bible which has embraced the religion of the civilized forces of the earth and has commanded more attention, study and devotion than any other book civilized man has ever known. Shall it now in this enlightened age be laid aside, ignored and ridiculed because a few men think they see within its many pages a few things that do not seem to harmonize with modern discovery?
Fellow students, I submit we can ill afford to reach a hasty conclusion on a matter so important.
In this discussion of the Bible I have made reference almost exclusively to matters contained within the Old Testament. Even there I have passed by many important items, such for instance as the forms and procedure of government which today serve as prototypes for modern nations. I have said nothing of the New Testament. I feel, however, that I can safely entrust it to your consideration and private opinion. You know of its beauty. You are acquainted with the incomparable life to which it is devoted. You not only have knowledge of the messages which came to mankind from Jesus the Christ but many of you have felt in reality the power and influence which his message and personality give your lives.
We began with a quotation from Mr. John Langdon-Davies to the effect that modern man has a religion "because the material facts of life are not sufficient for his happiness," that "man is a believing animal," and that enlightened man in this scientific age is entitled to an overbelief beyond the body or natural knowledge and that this overbelief is man's religion. I am glad to bring these statements to you because, you see, they give to you the permission of a scientist to have a religion. It is true there are certain limitations on that permission. You are not entitled to believe unless you study and learn and your religion must not be susceptible of refutation, "by the body of natural knowledge on which it is built." I should like to construe these limitations placed upon your license to believe in such manner as not to disagree with them but I am fearful that I cannot.
I AM sure that you should study and learn. I know that if you do your overbelief will be far more intelligent and more satisfying. It is one of the cardinal principles of the faith which I espouse that a man is saved, that is exalted, no faster than he learns. I cannot, however, accept the implication of the doctrine that a man should know all things before he believes some things; that is, he may have no religious faith and conviction until he has acquired a comprehensive knowledge of the universe.
Revelation, after all, is the pronouncement of ultimate truth. If it is given to a man to have faith in the authenticity of Divine statement, he may accept it with confidence that its verity will be vindicated, subject perhaps to possible errors of interpretation. The scientist himself will agree that even a theory may be logically maintained until there is definite proof available of its invalidity. Why then may we not continue to believe, so long as the major aspects of our faith find rather corroboration than refutation in the demonstrable facts of science?
These observations apply also to the implication of the second limitation on the right to believe, that is that no man's religion should be formulated except on the premises of accepted natural knowledge. Here the scientist fails to recognize the point at which most religious faith begins. Faith usually arises in advance of knowledge, stimulated it is true very often by tradition, early teachings and environment. Even assuming at this early stage of the development of religion that one's faith is little more than an hypothesis of life, a theory to be developed, what is the objection to the retention of that theory until subsequent knowledge and experience may substantiate or disprove it. Will it not be a useful skeleton on to which may come the flesh and tissue of knowledge and experience? If the whole or any part of it becomes untenable, after it has been subjected to the test of maturity, of course it may be discarded. But if the initial belief shall ultimately be made to synchronize with the learning of after life, what an irreparable injury comes to one whose faith is sacrificed before his knowledge matures.
IT is said that a man seldom secures a philosophy of life until after he has passed the age of thirty. Perhaps I have been a bit premature in handing out to you this bit of philosophy. I thank you for your patience in reading it.
If you will take the counsel of one who loves science and reveres religion, permit me to admonish you: Never close your mind or your heart; ever keep them open to the reception of both knowledge and spiritual impressions. Both true science and true religion are the exponents of truth. Their fields are different, their provinces are distinct, but their purposes are identical—to enlighten man, to give him power, to make him good and bring him joy. Never abandon a time-tested thing of worth until you are very, very sure that the new is better. Be not ashamed of faith in God. It has been the incentive for the noblest things of life.
Sincerely your friend,
Stephen L. Richards
A member of the Council of Twelve
